SCOTUS Poised To Give Trump Even More Unbridled Power

Originally Posted by James Lacey

It wasn't necessarily racially motivated, but the three-judge federal panel that heard the case certainly thought that it illegally diluted minority voting power. Only one of the judges dissented (a Reagan appointee), and the other two joined the majority: a Trump appointee and an Obama appointee. As far as I know, the unusual mid-decade redistricting we are discussing was initially done entirely at Trump's behest to gain a partisan advantage in the 2026 midterms. I'm not sure what you mean by "it was court-ordered." I believe the Republican lawyers who defended the redistricting in court even argued it wasn't illegal, since it was done entirely for partisan benefit. However, that doesn't mean that the redistricting didn't disenfranchise minorities. I see similar actions in blue states, such as CA, resulting from partisan actions in Texas and other red states. In contrast, Texas's actions were clearly undertaken only because Republicans are in deep trouble in the midterms. Surely this diffence in motivation between red and blue states is meaningful.

Then it's legal.  I don't like gerrymandering at all, but the law is the law.   Your observation is surely true, that partisan gerrymandering by Rs always arguably dilutes minorities, but only because minorities are predominately D.  Partisan motivation = legal.  We don't have to like it, but it is the law until Congress changes it.  Ha.

Alito discussed all of this in his short opinion.  The District Court applied the wrong standards, and the litigants did not even argue that Texas was not motivated by partisan advantage. 

I was wrong about Court ordered I think.  It was DOJ ordered.

Originally Posted by James Lacey

It wasn't necessarily racially motivated, but the three-judge federal panel that heard the case certainly thought that it illegally diluted minority voting power. Only one of the judges dissented (a Reagan appointee), and the other two joined the majority: a Trump appointee and an Obama appointee. As far as I know, the unusual mid-decade redistricting we are discussing was initially done entirely at Trump's behest to gain a partisan advantage in the 2026 midterms. I'm not sure what you mean by "it was court-ordered." I believe the Republican lawyers who defended the redistricting in court even argued it wasn't illegal, since it was done entirely for partisan benefit. However, that doesn't mean that the redistricting didn't disenfranchise minorities. I see similar actions in blue states, such as CA, resulting from partisan actions in Texas and other red states. In contrast, Texas's actions were clearly undertaken only because Republicans are in deep trouble in the midterms. Surely this diffence in motivation between red and blue states is meaningful.

Incidental disenfranchising of minorities is not illegal if the gerrymandering is motivated by partisan purposes.  The "Texas started it" argument is legally meaningless.   I'd personally prefer not to have partisan gerrymandering, but we do, and according to many, the D's have historically benefited the most from this.  I know that I was personally gerrymandered from R Golden/Lakewood, where I lived at the time. to D Boulder, just so the dominant D's in Colorado were assured one more seat.

Originally Posted by James Brown

Incidental disenfranchising of minorities is not illegal if the gerrymandering is motivated by partisan purposes.  The "Texas started it" argument is legally meaningless.   I'd personally prefer not to have partisan gerrymandering, but we do, and according to many, the D's have historically benefited the most from this.  I know that I was personally gerrymandered from R Golden/Lakewood, where I lived at the time. to D Boulder, just so the dominant D's in Colorado were assured one more seat.

And the fact that we have a system so easily manipulated by raw political power and partisanship is just one of the many things that are deeply flawed about it. It's unfathomable to think that our system of fairness is so fragile that one demagogue without one tiny ounce of shame (Trump), and a state's partisan political leadership (Abbot, Paxton, and Patrick) can so easily upset the apple cart of fair play, and create a situation that puts many Texans into a particular electoral district based only on their race. Regardless of the motivation proclaimed by Texas Republicans, and never mind that a majority of Texans don't want the new map. But, if it's "legal," then let the redistricting and the lawsuits commence. This is the ugliness they have wrought, and it will disenfranchise a lot of people and undermine voting rights.

Originally Posted by James Brown

Incidental disenfranchising of minorities is not illegal if the gerrymandering is motivated by partisan purposes.  The "Texas started it" argument is legally meaningless.   I'd personally prefer not to have partisan gerrymandering, but we do, and according to many, the D's have historically benefited the most from this.  I know that I was personally gerrymandered from R Golden/Lakewood, where I lived at the time. to D Boulder, just so the dominant D's in Colorado were assured one more seat.

Excuse me for not immediately responding to your righteous indignation. I was a trifle busy last night and today after arriving at my observing site:

Temps were summer-like--in the 70s with 30% humidity--then at night fall a rapid decline with temps at freezing a few hours after sunset with 29F during much of the evening (despite the weather forecast of 38F) and 28F at 6:00am. Additionally, humidity, as per my digital gauge, rose to nearly 70% at night but, inexplicably, without dew or frost. 
Despite the good seeing predictions, it was poor to average and while it generally supported the use of my 10mm Ethos, I couldn't go lower than that. I actually used the Ethos exclusively last night for several reasons, and I'm glad that I did.

Transparency was very good so at least that helped and multiple SQM reads were @ 21.16.

Despite the less than ideal predicted conditions, I did have several key takeaways from the evening among the many objects I viewed last night:

1. Cetus: I never seem to get enough time for this constellation so I revisit it anytime I can:  Check your notes and see if you've observed these, both of which were quite impressive last night:

NGC 157: this galaxy is unexpectedly large, bright, and reminded me of a white sail or cotton candy:  https://www.deepskycorner.ch/obj/ngc157.en.php
NGC 247: This one nearly extended a whopping three quarters of the way in the field of my ethos:  https://www.deepskycorner.ch/obj/ngc247.en.php
NGC 246: I'm sure you've seen this one and although ok without a filter, my lumicon 2" 0111 made it appear almost photographic:  https://www.deepskycorner.ch/obj/ngc246.en.php

2. Perseus: NGC 1275: Centered in the Perseus 1 galaxy cluster (Abell 426), this galaxy appears to have its fellow galaxies littered around it in an expanding circle within the field of the ethos:  https://www.astronomy.com/observing/101-must-see-cosmic-objects-ngc-1275/

3. Thor's Helmet: Despite being in the combined lightdome of Santa Clarita and LA, aka "perpetual dawn", the lumicon 0111 worked another miracle, and the bubbly innards, flowing wings and a nebulous cap was a welcome sight.

4. Finally, I awoke just before sunrise and just looking up, it was neat to see Ursa Major overhead with Corvus in its highest position along with Leo ascending into the western sky--it's good to see 'em when you haven't seen them in awhile.

That said, Trump picked his two favorite judges the other day, and, taking a wild guess, I got 'em right before he did! (What are the odds?) Sammy and Clarence! Who would have thought?

Now to Jim and his kvetching: First, he could move to ruby red Colorado Springs, Colorado and live in the same community next to the arch typical Trump supporter we all know and who probably took my advice and joined ICE. Or, Jim could move and be represented by none other than LAUREN BOEBERT. I'm sure she'd love to hear from you. What couldn't be better?
Jim, the point is, YOU HAVE CHOICES! 
What do you want me to do, draw YOU a map?!

Originally Posted by James Brown

Did you read the opinion?   Of course not.   I am so disappointed in this forum.   Just because you all don’t like an interim outcome, you all default to the “shill” argument without observing that the Court is quite likely 100 % correct under the law.   This is an unresolved case and you, Rod, and even James are unwilling to dig into the legal and procedural issues.   Much easier to smuggly play the “shill” card.   😟

This is what I'm talking about. Not just the one case.

Dave

Originally Posted by David Cotterell

This is what I'm talking about. Not just the one case.

Dave

I look at all the politically hot cases - none qualify as shilling for Trump.  In other words, none of the cases I have read seem to stray from proper conservative jurisprudence.  I don't blame Kagan, Ketanji-Brown and Sotomayor for dissenting either.  They are not shilling for the Democrats.  They are applying proper liberal jurisprudence to the issues before them.  I do not understand why smart guys like you and Rod insist on seeing these decisions as obviously "wrong" or obviously "biased" for political reasons.  You might disagree with the outcome, but the outcomes are not "wrong" or examples of the Court shilling for anyone.  The outcomes are the natural results of conservative justices applying conservative legal principals to difficult legal issues.

Originally Posted by David Cotterell

This is what I'm talking about. Not just the one case.

Dave

Your source is a youngster - a child even.  I value your opinion far more than I value his.  I don't mind saying that I value my own opinion on issues of jurisprudence far more than this activist's opinion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Myrick

You are old enough to remember the Warren Court issuing progressive opinions one after another.  You probably remember Roe v. Wade when it came out.  You might very well have agreed with the outcome, but at the time, did you consider the Warren Court Shills for the left?  Of course not!  As you probably know, Roe was issued on shaky ground, even liberal icons like Ginsberg acknowledged that.  The Roberts Court has undone some of what the Warren Court did - not because of political bias or shilling.  I could argue that the Warren Court were the actual shills - but I certainly won't.  I am smart enough to see that they were liberal justices applying liberal judicial principals to the thorny issues presented to them.  Times have changed.  Elections have long term consequences.  

I get it that the press and 95% of the electorate applies the same lockstep left/right political motivation to the Court that they apply to elected officials.  The press and 95% of the electorate lack the ability of to discern what is really going on in these Supreme Court cases.  I want you to be part of the 5% that brings some serious consideration to the Court's actions, even if you usually disagree with the outcomes.

Originally Posted by James Brown

I look at all the politically hot cases - none qualify as shilling for Trump.  In other words, none of the cases I have read seem to stray from proper conservative jurisprudence.  I don't blame Kagan, Ketanji-Brown and Sotomayor for dissenting either.  They are not shilling for the Democrats.  They are applying proper liberal jurisprudence to the issues before them.  I do not understand why smart guys like you and Rod insist on seeing these decisions as obviously "wrong" or obviously "biased" for political reasons.  You might disagree with the outcome, but the outcomes are not "wrong" or examples of the Court shilling for anyone.  The outcomes are the natural results of conservative justices applying conservative legal principals to difficult legal issues.

The fact that both sides can apply their legal principles to defend and justify their points of view is precisely what makes these cases seem as though their outcomes hinge solely on political attitudes or aims. I actually read (most) of the opinion from the court, and while I understand the conservative argument, I still agree with the liberal dissent far more. My own agenda and biases at work, I'm sure. Still, in my mind, neither side has a clear-cut winning argument, and it all boils down to who has the majority, which is why there are charges of politically motivated outcomes.

Originally Posted by James Brown

Your source is a youngster - a child even.  I value your opinion far more than I value his.  I don't mind saying that I value my own opinion on issues of jurisprudence far more than this activist's opinion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Myrick

You are old enough to remember the Warren Court issuing progressive opinions one after another.  You probably remember Roe v. Wade when it came out.  You might very well have agreed with the outcome, but at the time, did you consider the Warren Court Shills for the left?  Of course not!  As you probably know, Roe was issued on shaky ground, even liberal icons like Ginsberg acknowledged that.  The Roberts Court has undone some of what the Warren Court did - not because of political bias or shilling.  I could argue that the Warren Court were the actual shills - but I certainly won't.  I am smart enough to see that they were liberal justices applying liberal judicial principals to the thorny issues presented to them.  Times have changed.  Elections have long term consequences.  

I get it that the press and 95% of the electorate applies the same lockstep left/right political motivation to the Court that they apply to elected officials.  The press and 95% of the electorate lack the ability of to discern what is really going on in these Supreme Court cases.  I want you to be part of the 5% that brings some serious consideration to the Court's actions, even if you usually disagree with the outcomes.

"I want you to be part of the 5% that brings some serious consideration to the Court's actions, even if you usually disagree with the outcomes."

Jim, here's my response and I look forward to yours:

1.  If you want that 5% to grow in this case, then I'd argue SCOTUS would need to demonstrate at least the same degree of due-diligence in reviewing the arguments and evidence before the court. Specifically, the days and hours attendant with process that accompanied the review by the appeals court. This surely didn't happen over a holiday that the constituted the time frame in which the case was considered and decided, post haste.

2. What degree of evidence do you see being required to establish racial gerrymandering in the minds of the conservative members of SCOTUS? Given what we've seen thus far, it seems nothing, except an outright proclamation of intentional discrimination, signed in writing, rises to the level necessary for the conservative members of the court to decide otherwise. It seems that we somehow have achieved a perfect world in that these cases before this court have all been shown to be demonstrably politically partisan and nothing else beyond a shadow of a doubt, particularly within the current administration and its GOP minions that follow its orders without question, can possibly be doubted as to their intent. So, again, I really would like to know what SCOTUS would have to see before it to conclude that racial gerrymandering has actually happened?

Originally Posted by James Brown

Your source is a youngster - a child even.  I value your opinion far more than I value his.  I don't mind saying that I value my own opinion on issues of jurisprudence far more than this activist's opinion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Myrick

You are old enough to remember the Warren Court issuing progressive opinions one after another.  You probably remember Roe v. Wade when it came out.  You might very well have agreed with the outcome, but at the time, did you consider the Warren Court Shills for the left?  Of course not!  As you probably know, Roe was issued on shaky ground, even liberal icons like Ginsberg acknowledged that.  The Roberts Court has undone some of what the Warren Court did - not because of political bias or shilling.  I could argue that the Warren Court were the actual shills - but I certainly won't.  I am smart enough to see that they were liberal justices applying liberal judicial principals to the thorny issues presented to them.  Times have changed.  Elections have long term consequences.  

I get it that the press and 95% of the electorate applies the same lockstep left/right political motivation to the Court that they apply to elected officials.  The press and 95% of the electorate lack the ability of to discern what is really going on in these Supreme Court cases.  I want you to be part of the 5% that brings some serious consideration to the Court's actions, even if you usually disagree with the outcomes.

He's 38 years old.  At what age does a political commentator achieve adulthood so that you can respect his position?

And I'm bewildered by this scenario: "...liberal justices applying liberal judicial principals ..."  (implying, of course, that conservative justices apply conservative judicial principles).   This is a big problem, one that you have lived with all your life so that you don't even notice how fucked up it is.  You have laws, you have a constitution and a bill of rights.  These shouldn't have a 'right' or a 'left'.  But in America they do.  

Dave